I was disappointed to see Robert J. Samuelson's column in the Washington Post yesterday, "The Impossible Dream", which uses the release of a brace of studies on income inequality by the Pew Charitable Trusts to assert that the American Dream is too fuzzy of a concept to actually be meaningful; and even if it meant something, it’s not in any danger of slipping away, and that even if it was in danger of slipping away, there’s nothing we could do about that anyway.

Each of these points is wrong enough to deserve its own rebuttal. So let’s get started.

Samuelson makes the first point thusly:

Few phrases in our political vocabulary are more abused than "the American dream." The standards for achieving the dream have become so open-ended and expansive that, inevitably, we must fail. Does it mean becoming a homeowner? Enjoying increased living standards? Having "opportunity"? Rising above your parents' class? Achieving economic security if you "play by the rules"? Or all of the above -- and more?

It's a mushy concept that inspires endless debates over who's been cheated and why.

Well, that's just silly.  We have two years of research data now on what the American Dream means to people, all freely downloadable from our Web site. It shows beyond doubt there is a consensus among working people as to what the American Dream is, and that it is increasingly at risk.

To give just one example, look at our most recent survey (from September). When we asked registered voters to read a list of possible elements of the American Dream and rate each from 1 to 10 based on how American Dreamy they were, four elements were rated “10” by 70% or more of those surveyed:

• Having a job that pays enough to support a family
• Having affordable quality health care that you can depend on
• Being able to ensure your children have the opportunity to succeed
• Having a secure and dignified retirement

It’s hard to say that people don’t agree on what the American Dream means when 70% of registered voters agree that it means these things.

Samuelson’s second point: that even if the American Dream existed, it’s not in any danger.

[T]he high degree of intergenerational economic mobility is Pew's most interesting finding. What happens at the bottom of the income scale also happens at the top. About 60 percent of children born of the richest fifth of parents do not themselves end up among the richest fifth; about 23 percent drop into the next-to-highest group and 9 percent fall to the bottom. Parents influence their children's destiny but do not determine it.

But even a cursory reading of the Pew study he’s referencing argues against this. Here’s the chart he’s referring to:

(Click above image for full size chart)

Note that in most cases, an decent predictor of which income class your children will be in is which class you are in. 42% of poor kids grow up to become poor adults; 39% of super-rich kids grow up to be super-rich adults (with another 23% just ending up regular rich).  In those quintiles where class mobility is the most common, it's downward, not upward: the biggest category where kids from the second quintile end up is the first (i.e. poorest) quintile.

In other words, the best way to become rich in America is to be born that way. Doesn’t sound like equality of opportunity to me. And the people we’ve surveyed agree: 70% of registered voters surveyed told us that the American Dream would be harder for the next generation to achieve.

So what can be done about this?  According to Samuelson, not much:

The possibility that their children will move down the economic ladder, in class position if not income, is one of the great anxieties that assault the vast middle class, even at its highest reaches. Mobility is a great thing, but it often comes at someone else's expense. As some rise in rank, others must fall. To some extent, the American dream is inherently an impossible dream because it cannot fulfill people's expectations of both opportunity and peace of mind. 

What Samuelson misses is that the society we get is the result of the policy choices we make. If we choose to build an economy that rewards hard work, we get a society where prosperity is distributed broadly and social mobility is possible. Of course, we can choose to go in other directions, too (and for many years now we have). But there’s nothing inevitable about any of this; it’s all dependent on the choices we make.

There’s nothing impossible about the American Dream. If we want to keep it alive, we just have to start choosing to do so.